Anna Karenina Movie
Storyline
TAGLINES
In a world of power and privilege, one woman dared to obey her heart.
Anna is a young and elegant wife of Mr. Karenin, who is wealthy and old. She meets the handsome Count Vronsky. Anna and Vronsky fall in love with each other, and he comes to be with her in St. Petersburg. They are very happy together and make a great looking couple, but soon their happiness gets under social pressures. Anna is hopelessly begging Mr. Karenin for a divorce, but he wants to keep the mother of their child. She has another baby born from her lover Vronsky. Conflict between her untamed desires and painful reality causes her a depression...
| Sophie Marceau | Anna Karenina |
| Sean Bean | Vronsky |
| Alfred Molina | Levin |
| Mia Kirshner | Kitty |
| James Fox | Karenin |
| Fiona Shaw | Lydia |
| Danny Huston | Stiva |
| Phyllida Law | Vronskaya |
| David Schofield | Nikolai |
| Saskia Wickham | Dolly |
| Jennifer Hall | Betsy |
| Anna Calder-Marshall | Princess Schcherbatksy |
| Petr Shelokhonov | Kapitonich |
| Valerie Braddell | Ambassador's Wife |
| Niall Buggy | Doctor |
| Bernard Rose |
5.90 out of 10 (1464 votes)
Visitor Reviews
Somewhere inside this lukewarm movie, there's a very good movie struggling to get out.
posted on 11 May 2009"Anna Karenina" isn't quite a terrible movie. The scenery is pretty; the score, courtesy of Tchaikovsky, is great; and the attempt to balance the two types of relationships is a noble one. Unfortunately, "Anna Karenina" is a severely hobbled movie.The biggest problem, it pains me to say, is the miscasting of Sophie Marceau in the central role. She is never passionate enough to make us understand why she gives up everything for Vronsky (Sean Bean). Even during some of the more passionate scenes, she is still too composed and collected (Bean suffers from a similar problem, although not as severely as Marceau). Moreover, her French accent is seriously distracting. I admire anybody who can speak multiple languages, but it's all wrong for this movie. The wildly different accents destroy the rhythm of Anna and Vronksy's conversations, and it sometimes feels as though they're not even in the same scene. This, in turn, disastrously torpedoes their chemistry -- a fatal flaw when your entire movie is based on a hot, illicit love affair.Ironically, both Bean and Marceau have their best moments after the affair goes sour. Vronsky's impatience is the first time we see true sparks from the character; Anna's hallucinations, and the separation from her living son, are genuinely disturbing. The filmmakers try to juxtapose Anna and Vronsky's whirlwind affair with the slow-but-steady love that develops between rich Levin (Alfred Molina) and Princess Kitty (Mia Kirshner). Although the effort is noble, it has the same effect as the smorgasbord of accents, that of entirely destroying the movie's pace. It feels rushed and superficial in some places, but ploddingly slow in others. Taken on its own, however, Levin's story is far more compelling than the main plot's lukewarm attempts at passion. Wringing every last drop of psychological depth out of the script, Molina gives a wonderful glimpse into the character's loneliness, melancholy, and eventual peace -- you almost found yourself wishing the movie were just about this guy. As his love interest, Mia Kirschner is a total lightweight and her Canadian accent is as jarring as Marceau's French one; fortunately, Molina has enough gravitas for both of them. If the script had been better, he would have brought the entire movie into warm focus. As it is, the movie feels disjointed and rambling. Had it been better organized -- and perhaps differently cast -- we might have seen an interesting meditation on the various kinds of love. As it is, we see only a few bright spots amid a sea of disappointment.
In regards to Anna Karenina
posted on 11 Apr 2009The novel Anna Karenina by the genius Leo Tolstoy's a superlative example of what makes literature so wondrous. The movie for the most accurately gauges the majesty of his novel. Overall the movie's a fantastic adaptation with Sean Bean whose performance's always excellent. Sophie Marceau looked beautiful and played the role of Anna superbly. Some scenes were omitted or altered but overall, a fantastic book to movie adaptation.
This is one of my favorites
posted on 21 Mar 2009I disagree that this was terrible. I am a big time historical movie and costume buff, so I watch everything I can get my hands on and there is hardly a period drama I have not seen. I have also read the book. While the story line of the movie doesn't necessarily follow the novel, I am still sucked into it every time I see it. I found their chemistry wonderful, the costumes lovely and very period accurate, the music and cinematography fabulous. I have seen it over a dozen times (bought the DVD) and STILL never get bored. Sophia Marceau was a perfect choice in my opinion. She is classically beautiful, and the right combination of all the elements that made her character.....chaste wife turned star crossed lover, strong, confidant woman melted to vulnerable young girl. I adored Sean Bean also. I found him totally believable, and I fail to understand how anyone even remotely interested in period dramas could fail to appreciate this film.
Very disappointing!
posted on 09 Mar 2009First of all: It's a great story. Incredible, how the author Leo Tolstoi describes the feelings of a woman who gave up everything (marriage, child, social reputation) for her love and commits suicide when she thinks that she will lose this love too. But the film is horrible.
Yes, the pictures are good, but first of all the choice of Sophie Marceau was a terrible mistake. In the book Anna is, before she meets her later lover Wronski, a well situated lady with no personal conflicts in her life. She is self-confident, and other women come to her to get good advices for their problems with the husband, the children and so on. And then Anna meets Wronski, and her life shatters like glass. They fall in love madly, but this love is for both the worst thing that ever happens to their lives. It ruins both of them. Sophie Marceau isn't able to play this self-confident, cool woman. From the beginning she seems to be a nervous teenager, and so the drama of the story can't be developed. There is also no passion between her and Sean Bean. I only felt very, very bored. It's a pity, that this great story was ruined, because when I heard that there would be a remake of Anna Karenina, I was very curious, because the book is one of my favourites. Unfortunately I have to say: Go and read the book! It's much better!
A poor telling of an oft told tale.
posted on 09 Nov 2008"Anna Karenina", (circa 1997) is a lavish abbreviated retelling of the Tolstoy classic which tries to do too much with too little time. The capable cast seems to have mostly British accents (except for Marceau's rather obvious French undertone) which seem out of place in a film shot and set in Russia. This leap-frogging flick does resound with the import of one maxim: If you can't do it right, don't do it at all.
Eye candy which barely misses the mark!
posted on 16 Oct 2008I'm not sure how this movie slipped past me, as I try to stay on top of the period movies that come out. Nonetheless I caught it on one of the Encore channels last night, and I'm glad I did. Visually this movie is incredible! The cinematography could not have been much better, down to small details such as Levin "mowing" in the fields with the scythe in perfect rhythm with the workers.As much as I like the film, however, I'm disappointed that Sophie Marceau's portrayal of Anna was not more passionate. On the whole I thought her performance was pretty good, but I agree with the comments above that she could have exhibited a much more involved and emotional presence in the face of a love that she could not resist. Ditto for Sean Bean, although he was somewhat better at it than Sophie. It's a situation where one fervently wishes that the actors were better than they were, because you know that it would have made the movie a "10." Both Bean and Marceau did provide some excellent glimpses into the souls of their characters, but only glimpses. One would wish for more intimate looks into their motivations and their respective desolations. I was not at all put off by accents of the actors. So Marceau has a mild French accent...French was the dominant language of the Russian court up to the Revolution, so it would not have been out of place at all.The story of Levin and Kitty fares better, if only because of the stellar performance of Alfred Molina. Offhand I can't think of a more underrated actor (save perhaps Ron Perlman). Ms. Kirshner was fine as Kitty, although her journey from infatuation with Vronsky to love for Levin was given short shrift.Overall I loved this movie, but I just wish it had been two marks better.
A wonderful 2 hours!
posted on 11 Aug 2008I saw this movie almost accidentally and I LOVED it! It made me a fan of Sophie Marceau, a beautiful and talented French actress. To my delight Sophie is starring in some upcoming movies (which I will not miss). I would recommend this movie to anyone looking for a movie with all the components that makes a classic. Too bad it didn't hit the mainstream, it was very under-rated. Bottom line: I loved this movie, and I am usually quite picky about which movies I say that about!
The usual story but with a vaginal hemorrhage bonus!
posted on 06 Jul 2008To think this story has been filmed probably most often of all the Russian novels and that all the preceding versions managed to preserve their dignity while never quite getting to the point of the original novel... And then, this little bit of fluff had to come along. I caught this on Canadian Bravo tonight and what a disappointment. It strictly adheres to the European school of literary-adaptations-as-a-series-of-medical-emergencies-and-body fluids-melodrama. Sophie Marceau is no Greta Garbo or Russian grande bourgeoise, Lord knows. But would it be too much to ask for her to keep her facial features from contorting into a very anachronistic crack addict's at the slightest hint of "drama"? And the scene of her violent vaginal hemorrhage is definitely not in the novel but must have seemed de rigueur for the producers' sensibilities: childbirth was such an ordeal in those barbaric times, don't you know - we just had to show it... The music is by Tchaikowsky, Sean Bean is the sexiest man alive even when forced to wear clothes, the sets and costumes are by God, but the script is strictly Extreme Harlequin. As my late mother wisely used to say about most modern pap of this type: "Ils font exprès pour nous écoeurer!"
Worth seeing if you don't read the novel first
posted on 10 Apr 2008While many details of the novel were left out, Director Bernard Rose crafted an elegant interpretation of the Russian classic. Sofie Marceau's cool, refined beauty is exactly the kind of woman that great love novels are written for. The location is authentic and scenes unforgettable. Overall a refreshing change from many of today's movies.
Imperfect, but beautiful nonetheless
posted on 06 Feb 2007Now, perhaps I'm out of my element writing a review for "Anna Karenina" without having read the book, but I shall do so regardless. Many criticised this film because it did not follow the book, or omitted one thing or another. That is all well and good, but what feature-length film *can* capture the entire scope of a novel the size of "Anna Karenina"? I watched the older version with Greta Garbo and--though I cannot imagine why--it never truly caught my attention. This version, however, captured me from the start. And I am usually the first one to complain about what is wrong with a remake in comparison to the old version. A paradox, indeed.This film first caught my eye because of Sophie Marceau. I admire her immensely as an actress, having seen her in several films, both French and English. Then, I recognised Bernard Rose as the director of "Immortal Beloved", a film I had enjoyed some months before, mostly due to a magnificent performance by Gary Oldman, some of the most glorious music caught on film.The music, I can probably cite as one of the main reasons I loved this film.
I can think of no better love theme for a doomed romance like that of Anna and Vronsky, than the first movement of Tchaikovsky's Sixth Symphony. The use of "Swan Lake" at various points was also wonderful, and the interplay during the scene at the ballet held me mesmerised. Vronsky speaks of Anna being trapped in her marriage as the Prince seeks to capture the Swan Queen.
Perhaps I'm just rambling, but somehow that connected.On the whole, the performances were good. Sophie Marceau was perfectly believable as Anna, and some of her scenes sent chills down my spine, though my favourite performance of hers still has to be "Firelight". Sean Bean had me worried for a few seconds, with a mannered reading or two, but improved quickly as the film progressed. Another reviewer pointed out that Vronsky was meant to be a shallower character than Anna, and now that I think back on it, I believe that is very true, and that Sean Bean's performance reflected this superficiality. Mia Kirshner was adequate--I didn't particularly care for her--but Alfred Molina and James Fox both gave fine performances (a standout for me was when Anna wrote Karenin from Italy and Karenin wavered before refusing to let her see Sergei).However, equally on par with the actors, was the setting. Very few films, I have to admit, can look *so* beautiful. Especially the ballroom scene, with the seemingly neverending hallway of gilded doors, the location photography was spectacular. The costumes were stunning, and the cinematography made even snow seem alive. Even if you do not care for the story or the acting, this is a film to watch for visuals.Thus, I believe that this film deserves far more credit than it received.
I, personally, loved it for varied reasons, but I have to admit that what truly captured me was the way Bernard Rose can take an average script and transform it into a beautiful film using visuals and music. Very few directors take the time to put music and image together if they use classical scores (my favourites would be David Lean and John Boorman), and I believe Bernard Rose should be watched in the future. I should love to see what he would do with a film set in late 19th century Italy, when opera was at its height!***1/2 out of ****
AWFUL JUST PLAN AWFUL!
posted on 02 Jul 2006This movie is really awful. The only reason I watched it was because of Sean Bean. I never seen him play a romantic role before. He was excellant in this movie. Shopie Marceau (The world is not enough) was not the right choice for the role of Anna. Alfred Molina ( Not with out my daughter) and Mia Kirshner ( Not another teen movie) was a compleate waste. I very much liked the one with Christopher Reeve and Jacquline Bisset. I hoped this movie would be just like the old one. I love Sean Bean in this but the rest stink. Watch the one with Reeve and Bisset it's way much better than this one.
Nice time killer
posted on 20 Jun 2006Watched this because I had never read the book nor seen any theatrical version. Was basically to familiarize myself with the story (Even though I knew the ending from watching "Micki and Maude") The story was a great one, but this film was nothing to write home about. The acting was so-so and I really felt nothing for the characters due to this. I'm not sorry I watched it though. Is a nice little time waster....if you have the time....and don't want to read a Tolstoy novel...I hear they are long.
Disappointing "Cliffs Notes" version of novel
posted on 30 May 2006Bernard Rose showed with IMMORTAL BELOVED that he's a good director, but this and CANDYMAN show he's flawed at writing. This is deservedly known as one of the great novels of our time, but you wouldn't know it from this movie. Admittedly, it looks breathtaking, and the performers all look their parts quite well. The main problems are when the actors speak, and the way Rose makes this a "Cliffs Notes" version of the novel. We only hit the high spots, and there's no emotional connection to the story at all, plus we miss the humanity of Tolstoy's view towards his characters.Sophie Marceau may be good in French films, but I wasn't impressed with her in BRAVEHEART, and I'm not impressed with her here; her reading of Anna is too shallow. Sean Bean, for some reason, plays Vronsky like he was playing 006 in GOLDENEYE, and while Mia Kirschner (an excellent actress), as Kitty, tries, she's too modern. James Fox is Karenin, and this is a role he's done so many times he can do it in his sleep, which he does. Alfred Molina is another actor I'm not a big fan of, but as Levin, he gives the only believable performance.
Audacity
posted on 01 Mar 2006It's time directors should refrain from distorting the language of literature (not just some best selling silly fiction). With expensive sets, historic backdrop, all kinds of grandeur and glamorous actresses they simply forget what the main story is all about. And things go absolutely disastrous when do the same kind of treatment to Tolstoy (one of the greatest authors the world of literature has ever seen).This is absolute audacity. Anna Karenina is not just a story of a naive infidel wife. And when there is an attempt to fit in just a few snapshots within those few hours all you get is a bogus piece of movie like this. It's meaningless to talk about how the movie did not match up to the novel. Watching this movie is just another (silly) experience of costumes and glamorous sets; like watching a fashion show and nothing else.
Lovely.... absolutely lovely.
posted on 07 Dec 2005This was surprisingly good. I'm not that much a fan of the Romance genre, if truth be told, but I'll make an exception for this one. The film is carefully crafted. Every emotion, every dialogue enhanced the overall tone of the film, slowly but surely escalating in its momentum up to its tragic climax.Sophie Marceau was brilliant. As was Sean Bean. I wasn't quite sure if they would be able to possess the kind of chemistry needed to pull this off, if truth be told, considering how they (in my opinion) seem to be of different temperament artistically (Sophie being more sensitive as seen in Braveheart and Marquis, while Bean is more explosive). Nevertheless, it worked out fine although, ironically, their relationship seem to be more believable whenever they fell out of odds with each other. :)
Why did it not win anything?
posted on 10 Nov 2005When I saw this movie I thought it won many awards, but when I found out that it didn't. I was thoroughly disappointed. How come it didn't? It has amazing cinematography, costumes, performances, etc. I do not understand why it was quite under-rated. It should have won at least an award for best costume design. Sophie Marceau was stunning, She was plausible as Anna Karenina, she really did her best as a woman who gave up everything to be with her frustrated love Vronsky (Sean Bean). Sean Bean envelops himself into the role very well. The costumes were flashy as well as the scenery. It was wonderful since I could really see all seasons in Russia like spring, Fall, Summer, especially winter. It was amazing to see the credible snow and cold wind. It really deserved some awards, but anyway What can I do? The best part of this movie was its tragic ending as Anna Karenina commits suicide by falling onto the train tracks. It certainly made me think. It's worth watching. Don't miss it. 8/10
An Abridged abridgement of Tolstoy.
posted on 09 Aug 2005I think perhaps some novels just do not work onscreen. Invariably when people set to adapt Anna on the big screen it gets turned into a period-piece overblown soap-opera esque love story. While it is true the passionate, doomed relationship between Anna and Vronksy is the central figure...it is by no means the ONLY story nor is the fact that they are in love the point.The point of the novel is a critique of society via the problem of Anna and Vronsky's affair; the search for God, Self and meaning in ones life via Levin and Kitty, to a lesser extent; the function of family via the study of Levin's household, the Karenins, the Oblonsky's the Scherbatsky's and to a lesser extent the Vronsky's(excepting of course Anna and Alexei et all). And as a final issue there how to achieve and keep personal happiness(internally and via personal relationships) and at what cost via Anna, Vronsky, Levin achieve or try to acheive it. Now granted...thats ALOT to somehow show and convey on film..the intense psychologicl, philosphical, moral and religious views that are raised in the novel..and I havent seen a film yet to do it justice. Even the 'classic' film version featuring Garbo is a wash imo as it takes te common-denominator 'soap opera' route.But, even with all this, I still went out and bought, sight unseen, the latest film version of AK. And sigh...I was still dissapointed. Once again, the base points are covered, and also so half-assed attempt to show Levin's struggle with his inner-self is thrown in..but really, this film is like puff pastry- pretty to look at and satisfying..but in an empty shallow way that leaves you hungry after an hour. As a visual spectacle the film is great- the costumes and sets are great..and give you a real sense of what life was like for memebers of a certain tax bracket in turn-of-the-19th-century Moscow and St. Petersburg. And cinematography is wonderful.very lively colors, very exuberant. But, all that is ruined once the characters open their mouths. Not that the dialogue was truly bad or stilted..but the film just felt glossed over..as if the movie wanted only to get from A-B, leaving the viewer with the feeling of connect-the-dots as the scenes were very disjointed and thrown together. And once again, the bare bones are covered..the Big Love affair of Anna and Vronsky..the scorned husband, the kid and a few tidbits thrown the Levin...if Tolstoy's novel is a feast the film leaves you famished.All in all...as a movie its a 5...and that is only for the technical aspects...as an adaptation of Tolkein...a 1, and thats only b/c they got the characters names right. My advice: If you have read the novel,watch it with the volume off and just look at the purdy pictures . If you havent read the novel, rent it see it once, then read the book.
Terrific, just plain terrific
posted on 13 Jul 2005According to an earlier review, this movie is supposed to be "just plan awful." The writer probably meant "plain" instead of "plan," and that misspelling may be an indication of the quality of the review.There is much to be said for the viewpoint that this film version of Tolstoy's novel, starring Sophie Marceau, must certainly be one of the greatest versions ever produced.Tolstoy himself lived to see just the beginning of the era of the motion picture and was said to have been fascinated by the possibilities the new medium presented. If so, he would no doubt have been quite astonished at the beauty and the extraordinary quality of this rendition of his story about Anna Karenina. The production values are among the highest there could possibly be. The costumes, the cinematography, and the sets – unlike earlier versions, the film was shot on location in St. Petersburg and elsewhere in Russia – are at such a remarkable level that the action almost does appear to be really taking place in the Czarist period at the end of the nineteenth century.As for Sophie Marceau's mild French accent – which the above-mentioned reviewer found so irritating – it is quite likely that many upper-classes Russians of the period actually did speak with a French accent. It was not Russian but French that was the dominant language among the Russian nobility and aristocracy of the time – for some, French was in fact their native language, since many of them never learned to speak Russian at all, except perhaps a few words and phrases they could use to communicate with the servants.What is perhaps most remarkable of all in this film is the utterly believable way that the behavior of the of characters is presented. Their motives are suggested with great subtlety, not in the somewhat simplistic tones of the (nevertheless still magnificent) MGM version of the film that starred Greta Garbo seventy years ago. Anna's husband is not a monster, for example, in this new version, but a rather pathetic, right-wing government bureaucrat with obsessively strict moral values. Moreover, the portrayal of Anna's behavior throughout the film, and especially in the final scenes, is a masterpiece of sympathetic psychological insight and understanding.This film is a – for the time being, anyway – neglected classic.
Faithful to the novel and a pleasure for the eyes.
posted on 11 Apr 2005Of all the versions of the Tolstoy novel which I have seen (two with Greta Garbo, the deplorable one with Vivien Leigh, another with Jacqueline Bisset), this is the one that really reflects the scope and social observation of the book. The careful direction and art direction, the St.Petersburg backgrounds, as well as the exquisite cinematography, make this movie a real feast for the eyes, with magnificent plastic compositions and lighting in every shot. The abused Tchaikovsky music was used discreetly. Sophie Marceau plays a very young Anna, and makes her credible all the time. Sean Bean and James Fox, as Vronsky and Karenin, are admirable. And even if the screen play by director Bernard Rose is a little too literary, the complete story was told, and the result was the best Anna Karenina the screen has offered.
- 1
- 2
a beautiful moving masterpiece
posted on 22 Jul 2009I first saw anna towards the end when i was home from school sick. I could not take my eyes off the television and was spellbound. i did not even know what the movie was called and I caught only the last half hour but I went out the next day and rented it and ended up with a 7 day late charge. It was so deeply moving and beautiful. I was mesmerized. The only flaw in this film was the weak link named mia kirschner, but it can be forgiven because marceau and beans performances were absolutely stunning. I have cried my heart dry watching this film every time and i watch it once a week at least. Bean is brilliant throughout but he is incredible at the end talking to tolstoy in the train about going off to die. he is so restrained and holding pain within and trying to hold up some sort of front that is strong and it is made so clear to the audience exactly what he is going through. both actors go through great transformations from beginning to end. the dazzling socialite and the handsome virile soldier who become shells of those former selves drowning into madness and grief. Perhaps the two most poignant parts for me are the scene of anna playing with the doll and the smile on her face just as she falls onto the train tracks. Sorrowfully beautiful,utterly romantic, and tragic. One of my all time favorite movies.